Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[YADA]

zz912:

This is completely unbiblical. It’s hard to count all the references, teachings, and instructions that directly contradict this personal opinion of yours.

As an example, there is the parable of the vine, and how true, real believers, who are part of the vine, who are part of Jesus, later leave, and are pruned away and thrown into the fire.

And another example. (Funny enough, this was part of the reading from the Gospel yesterday.)

Luke 21 "Before all this happens, however, they will seize and persecute you, they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons, and they will have you led before kings and governors because of my name. It will lead to your giving testimony. Remember, you are not to prepare your defense beforehand, for I myself shall give you a wisdom in speaking that all your adversaries will be powerless to resist or refute. You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed.* By your perseverance you will secure your lives.***"

Simply put, this notion that you cannot leave God after you’ve become a true believer is made-up nonsense.

Nice post …

I too was wondering how a person could lose the race … as the Scriptures tell us - but OSAS denies

SCITOR - We are commanded to take up our cross daily, run the race to the finish … in truth - we must freely choose for God … not merely once but every time …

Sin is knowingly turning away from God … so unless we become perfectly free from sin once we enter into that relationship [and no one does … not even your Mr. Stanley] we must also continually bring ourselves back to Christ and the live he calls us to …

Please start a thread for OSAS … **but before that - please **answer the posts regarding the mistakes you made in your assertions about the early church and infant baptism … Many here have posted the evidence and you have ignored them completely

 

[Church_Militant]

Please show me where each sacrament is alluded to in the bible.

Here’s a chart that does just that: catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Sacraments.htm

And there’s this:

Baptism. Scripture shows that John’s baptism was a symbol of repentance, but not a sacrament. It did not confer grace. In the Acts it is clear that those who received Christian baptism also received the Holy Spirit, had their sins forgiven and became members of Christ, and thus of the Church. It is the foundational sacrament, the only one Philip thought necessary to confer on the Ethiopian eunuch. Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; Mark 1:8; Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 1:4-5; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 11:16; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:3-6; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:25-26; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 3:20-21, and many others.

**Confirmation. **Completes Baptism by a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and enables the Christian for mission. This was seen at Pentecost with respect to the apostles. In the early Church it was often accompanied by charismatic signs, though these are not intrinsic to the sacrament. Conferred by the laying on of hands. In Acts 19:3-6, especially, it is clear that John’s baptism, Christian baptism and Confirmation are all distinct realities. Also, in Hebrews 6:2 baptizing and laying on of hands are distinguished. Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 39:29; Joel 2:28; John 14:16; Acts 2:4; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:3-6; Hebrews 6:2.

** Eucharist.** The Eucharist is visibly bread and wine but is in reality the Body and Blood of Christ. No mere symbols can effect eternal life. And abuse of no mere symbol can be worthy of damnation. In the early centuries the name of the Mass was the breaking of the bread. Yet, when word got out of what the Eucharist really was the Romans accused Christians of sacrificing babies and cannibalism, because they heard they ate human flesh. Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:24-27;

Penance. Christ gave authority, the keys, to the apostles to forgive sin, to decide between absolving or retaining guilt. This requires “confession” of sins for this judgment not to be arbitrary, hence the popular name of the sacrament. This authority was passed on to bishops, and from them to priests, with ordination. Matthew 16:19; John 20:21-23; Rev. 1:18.

Anointing of the Sick. Anointing prepares the person for death, and only incidentally may produce physical healing. The salvation and resurrection spoken of in James are in the first place spiritual. James 5:14-15.

Holy Orders. The threefold division of sacred ministers (bishops, priests and deacons) prefigured in the Old Law (high priest, priests, Levites) is clearly revealed in Scripture. Yet, most so-called “bible-believing” Protestant churches do not have them. Acts 6:3-6; Acts 13:2-3; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-9; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Tim. 5:17-19; 1 Tim. 5:22.

**Matrimony. **Marriage is, as St. Paul states, a mystery (mysterion). The Latin word used to translate mysterion is “sacramentum”. The sacraments are mysteries (as Eastern Christians still call them), for one thing is visible and something else is known by faith. By faith, matrimony is a sign of Christ and the Church, as well as a special calling. Mt. 19:10-11; Eph. 5:31-32.

Also there is my blog study article which covers this as well. “I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.

 

[bmonk]

. . .
Think about it. If you make infant Baptism the substitute sign for circumcision, does that mean then that we now have a church that is a false church, or a rebellious church, or an unbelieving church, or an apostate church but it’s still a church and somewhere in the middle there’s a remnant of true believers? You see, circumcision was only a sign that people belonged to an ethnic group, a group called Jews, a nation called Israel. It said nothing about their spiritual condition. Baptism is always tied to salvation. There’s no parallel. There’s no connection.

. . .

Infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it’s not New Testament Baptism, and it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision. What verse says that? Where is it? Show me the verse. Where in the Bible does it say, by the way, Baptism is a replacement of circumcision? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that anywhere. Again, this is a very far reaching assumption. There are no cases of infant Baptism. There is no description of infant Baptism. There is no call for infant Baptism. By your logic you are telling me that it means something the Bible doesn’t say it means. How could the Bible say it means anything when the Bible doesn’t say anything about it?

You are without scriptural support and are left to some kind of inferential evidence based on supposed covenantal considerations. The only Baptism that the New Testament knows anything about is the Baptism of people who put their faith in Christ.

. . .

First, I’d say that you have it backwards. Baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, rather circumcision prefigures baptism. It is not complete, nor a perfect symbol–but it is notable that it was given to infants (boys) to mark them as members of God’s people.

While infant baptism is not explicitly found in the scriptures, in several cases in Acts and in the letters of St. Paul, entire households are referred to as being baptized. It is likely that some or all of these included infants. The later practice of the Church, from early days, shows few qualms about infant baptism–and the few cases, such as the Donatists in North Africa are strongly resisted as innovations.

There is another argument you have, that only Scripture is allowed as the basis for doctrinal truth. However, where in the Scripture is the Trinity defined?

For that matter, where in the Scriptures is the authority of the Scriptures established or defined, or what works should be included?

Remember: Jesus did not leave us a Bible to believe in. He gave us the Church, the community of disciples, guided by the Holy Spirit–and they are the ones who recognized and organized the inspired texts into the Bible. And not everything was made explicit in the Bible, because the Church and its authority was still there, and is still around, to interpret and lay out what the faith encompasses. While the Church does not contradict Scripture, there are points on which Scripture is silent that the Church has spoken, often from ancient times.

 

[bmonk]

It is true that in this passage Peter promises that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is promised not only to the adults, but to “their children.” This verse is used by many to argue on this basis that baptism must be administered to children of believing parents.

In my opinion, this interpretation reads too much into the text. We must note that Peter goes on to say that the promise is “for all who are far away.” But no one interprets Peter to be suggesting that we should therefore baptize all Gentiles. The promise is for them in the sense that God wants to pour out his Spirit upon them (Ac 2:16). But they only become recipients of the promise — and we should only baptize them — when they make a personal decision to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. This is why Peter immediately adds that the promise is for “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” It is not for everyone in general. It is for everyone who will repent and believe, and thus for everyone whom God calls.

The same holds true for Peter’s assertion that the promise is not only for the adults in Peter’s audience, but for their children. God wants their children to receive the Holy Spirit, but the promise is only applied to them, and we should only baptize them, when they personally repent and believe.

Defenders of infant baptism argue that the references to households being baptized in Acts suggests that infants were baptized along with adults (Ac 11:13-14; 16:15; 30-34; 18:8). *There is no reason to assume this, however. * [italics added] When considering recorded history at this time it was the norm that all servants were included in a “household” in the ancient Roman world. Children, however, generally were not. This seems to be Luke’s perspective, for in the same context in which he speaks about households being baptized, he speaks about households being taught, believing and rejoicing (Ac 16:32; 34; 18:8).

Again, it’s important to notice that every example of someone “actually” being baptized in the New Testament was of a person old enough to decide to follow Christ on their own. Never do we read about infants being baptized.
For example, it was only after the Samaritans “believed Philip” as he preached the good news that “they were baptized, both men and women” (Ac 8:12). It was only after the Ethiopian eunuch embraced the good news about Jesus that he was baptized (Ac 8:35-36). The apostle Paul was baptized after he encountered Jesus and obeyed the heavenly vision (Ac 9:18).

Even Peter, he commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized only after he saw evidence of their faith in Jesus Christ (Ac 10:44-48). It was only after God opened Lydia’s heart and she believed that she and her household were baptized (Ac 16:14-15). And it was only after the disciples of John the Baptist accept Paul’s teaching about Jesus that they were baptized and received the Holy Spirit (Ac 19:5-6). Without exception baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to turn from their sinful way of life and submit their life to Jesus.

Do you have evidence for the claim that children were not considered members of a household, while servants were? It is my understanding that children were members of a household–1 Tim 3:4 and Galatians 4:1-2 both indicate such.

Yes, the head of the households that were baptized did believe and rejoice and so on–but we still require an infant to have such a believer willing to raise the child in the faith before baptism, whether it is the parents and godparents (best) or only the godparents.

I find the Baptist insistence on personal conversion and repentance before baptism to be more “magic” than the Catholic understanding–it verges on making the grace contingent on our action, while the Catholic doctrine makes baptism first a divine work: it is God who calls and saves and gives grace, even before we are able to respond fully. We can even see something like this in Mark 2:4-5:

Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd, they opened up the roof above him. After they had broken through, they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.”

[emphasis added]

It was not the paralytic’s faith Jesus saw–but “theirs”–those who broke open the roof and lowered him, his friends. We are saved not only by our own actions and choice, but always in and through community. This is one of the deep divides I find between certain Protestants and the Catholic faith.

 

[SPH1]

Scitor:

Yes to both. Infants are not capable of having faith.

Yet Christ used the faith of Children as our example. Are you suggesting that God is incapable of communicating with the soul of an infant?

However, I do believe that infants are under the grace of God whether they are baptized or not.

Is this your personal opinion, or do you propose it as a divinely revealed fact? And if you’re wrong, what happens to babies who die unbaptised and without “faith”?

Without exception baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to turn from their sinful way of life and submit their life to Jesus.

As I see it, concerning adult converts, it is at the baptismal font that one makes their “acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior”. Before baptism, all one really is doing is still considering the matter.

If baptism is necessary for grace/salvation, then how can infants be under God’s grace without being baptized?

This matter of grace can be a tricky subject, since God’s grace can go out to everyone at all times. But to the point, what scripture supports your view that infants have some kind of “saving grace”? Where does Paul or the other apostles tell people that their children are saved, and so should they be?

So let’s look at your scenario with, say, a child in Asia. They are infants and in God’s saving grace. They then grow up and fall out of grace (so much for OSAS.) But they never hear of Christ, so are presumably damned, via the SBC understanding. So God sets them up for that?

I think that the best scriptural case for infant baptism are the gospel references of people bring their children to Christ, where Christ laid hands on them and told them not to prevent children from coming to him. Note that the children were BROUGHT to Christ by their parents. There is no indication that they were already with Him. If infants are already with Christ, nobody could prevent them anyway.

Furthermore, what was the point of Christ laying hands on them?

Regarding infant baptism, the SBC is in the place of the disciples who rebuked Christ for receiving the children. (NOTE: I don’t know that the disciples who rebuked Christ included the actual apostles, as opposed to general followers.)

Christ is clear that no one comes to the Father but by Him, and that includes infants. But unbaptised infants who die are saved by Christ as their unseen savior, not because they lack original sin. Otherwise, there are millions of people who “do not need a savior” and are saved without Christ.

I do not see any misuse here. And it does prove what I stated and my comment has not been refuted. If you cannot see how instituting a law putting to death those that are re-baptized is support for and also a means of enforcing infant baptism, then all I can say is your bias restricts your ability think clearly on the matter.

While I’m always suspicious of a quoted law without seeing the actual document, assuming the accuracy of this law it would appear to prohibit re-baptism of any kind: infant baptism; adult baptism by pouring; and adult baptism by full immersion. Doing a rebaptism on a person who previously had any one of those baptismal methods would appear to be a violation.

But this law isn’t against proto-type Southern Baptists in the year 400ad over the age and form of baptism. Rather, it appears to involve an internal Catholic dispute concerning the worthiness of certain Catholic clergy to administer a proper baptism. Kind of like a SSPX matter. I know that our SBC friend wishes to feel the martyr over this ancient law, but the forum is correct that it missed the mark.

But I ask: does the SBC accept ANY kind of Catholic baptism? Or do they routinely re-baptise all former Catholics even if they received Catholic baptism as an adult by full immersion?

You could say personal Lord and Savior too…it is pure semantics.

Of course Christ is not my PERSONAL Lord and Savior, as He is savior of the whole world. I consider Lord and Savior proper, but have always considered the insertion of the unscriptural “personal” to be the gateway for heresy and directed against Christ’s Church.

You do not have an authoritative (and infallible) Church - By the very nature that the catholic church (or any church) is made up of and run by human men proves this. We have 2000 years of history to show the catholic church is in fact fallible.

So, for 2,000 years God has allowed his church to be in grave error. If God were ticked-off over infant baptism he should have done something early on to nip it in the bud. So much for God founding, building and guiding his church. But best for the other thread on head of the Church.

HINT: I contend that the SBC (like virtually all of Protestantism) does not really believe that Christ is head of the church … other than perhaps in a figure head or symbolic sense. And no, God is not head of all of the conflicting denominations. Remember, God is not the author of confusion, so did not found Protestantism.

Now, perhaps to the other thread re head of the church…

 

[YADA]

Funny - the title of this thread …

Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

What we have gotten is private interpretation and opinion - no facts . When SCITOR’s first fact on the early Church and Infant Baptism was refuted with actual quotes of the early Church Fathers - SCITOR has ignored it completely … no response, no acknowledgement - nothing but a change in direction and topic …

 

[Scitor]

Must be born of WATER and the Spirit or you cannot enter the kingdom of God sounds like baptism is required.

Like many others, your understanding of this verse is flawed as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation. There are many problems with this interpretation. First, Jesus elsewhere said that He came “to seek and to save the lost” (Lk 19:10). Since the NT never says Jesus baptized anyone, it seems obvious that baptism is not necessary for salvation, else he himself would have performed baptism. Second, rather than baptizing, Jesus went around teaching everyone who He as and telling them that it was necessary to believe in Him. In His own words,“For God so loved the world He gave His One and Only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jn 3:16).

Furthermore, He made it clear that condemnation is based not on failure to baptize, but on failure to believe in Him (Jn 3:18).

Finally, baptism is a religious work performed by human hands. If baptism is a requirement for justification before God, it would conflict with the biblical teaching that salvation comes by faith alone (Gl 2:16 and Eph 2:8-9)

How are they to make disciples? By baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit More evidence that it is required.

This verse in no way relates baptism to salvation.

Baptism washes sin away.

Symbolically baptism represents the dying of old self (immersion in water) and the rising as a new being in Christ (rising out of the water new and cleansed). I have provided the related scripture for this in a previous post.

You put on Christ by being baptizes more evidence that it is required.

Sorry…no further evidence there that baptism is required for salvation.

How are we saved? By regeneration and the Holy Spirit (What Jesus said water and the Spirit) we become heirs in hope of eternal life. No once save always saved.

There is ample scripture that supports OSAS. Again, read Galatians and Ephesians. It is stated without dispute that salvation is a Gift from God…it has nothing to do with works. In Eph 2:8-9, Paul tells us “It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” We are saved by grace. It is God who calls us, not the other way around.

Gl 2:15-16 - Faith not works
Gl 2:21 - If not OSAS, it has to be works, thus Christ died for nothing
Eph 1:4-6 - It is Christ who calls us
Eph 1:13 - When we heard and believed we were SEALED - meaning cannot be undone. We

1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

The very Gospel itself comes under attack when eternal security of the believer is questioned. Placing the responsibility for maintaining salvation on the believer is adding works to grace and is unbiblical. It would no longer be a gift. It would become a trade…our faithfulness for His faithfulness. This is a far cry from the good news Jesus preached.

Baptism not required But Baptism is like the ark of Noah which saved his family from destruction it saves us now. Not that it washes the dirt from the body but it appeals to God as a promise on the part of Christians to live with a good conscience before God.

Again, not evidence that baptism is required, but yes a symbolic gesture that one is a new creation who will go forth seeking to live his life for Christ.

 

[Cathoholic]

Can People (like PARENTS) Really Have Faith That Results In
Grace For Other People (like their CHILDREN)?

Objection: The faith of the parents cannot be applied in any way for their babies, because this concept is stated NOWHERE in Scripture.

Answer: Sure it is. This is a very basic Christian message and I’m amazed that anyone who calls themselves “Bible-believing” denies this concept.

Every time we pray on someone else’s behalf we are exercising this ability of our faith being applied to others’ benefit. If our children are sick and God hears our prayers and the child gets better because of it, would this not prove this point? Yes.

Let’s look at a couple of examples of people’s faith being applied to OTHER individuals for their benefit (as has been pointed out elsewhere).

In Matthew 8 we will see a servant is healed by Jesus based upon the faith of . . . the servant?

No!

The servant is healed on behalf of the faith of the centurion!

MATTHEW 8:5-9, 11-13 5 As he entered Caperna-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. . . . 10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Objection: Well this is a mere physical healing of the servant. This has nothing to do with spiritual healing.

Answer: Some people have a problem with spiritual grace being conveyed in any form through the physical realm.

Can healing based on another’s faith not be applied to the spiritual realm too?

I suspect nothing I can say will convince some objectors of this truth. But let’s go on and look at spiritual healing of a person based on the faith of OTHERS.

Let’s look at a real historical event which is also probably an allegory for Original Sin too.

Jesus along with Peter, James, and John were just coming down from Mount Tabor just after the Transfiguration event.

A man who was waiting with many of Jesus’ other disciples meets Jesus at the bottom of the Mount.

This man has a son who was a victim of demonic possession since childhood or since “paidion” and the other Apostles could not cast it out (the Greek is paidion = paidion meaning infant or half-grown boy or girl, [can also mean “immature Christian” but not context here] see Strong’s Protestant Greek Lexicon #3813).

Yet “Dad” implores Jesus on his son’s behalf. What happens? . . . .

MARK 9:14-27 14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them. 15 And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and ran up to him and greeted him. 16 And he asked them, “What are you discussing with them?” 17 **And one of the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a dumb spirit; **18 and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.” 19 And he answered them, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.” 20 And they brought the boy to him; and when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has he had this?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.” 23 And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” 25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.” 26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, “He is dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.

We see the imploring of the father of the BOY (he even humbly calls this imploring “unbelief”) being applied to the son and Jesus affirming this notion.

Yet the there is no evidence the boy was a believer beforehand.

There IS evidence this boy was demon possessed (the fire and water the demon throws the boy into is probably blasphemously aping God concerning Baptism likely).

The boy gets special grace from Jesus associated with his Father’s act!

And also notice the boy had a spirit of a demon “from childhood”.

Some Anabaptists even say babies that die cannot go to Heaven because they “cannot accept Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior” yet.

Am I supposed to believe along with at least some of the Anabaptists that children cannot receive the Holy Spirit . . . (you know what I’m going to say) . . . . but CAN receive the spirit of a demon? No!

Other Anabaptists think children automatically receive the Holy Spirit but that is stated nowhere in Scripture either.

 

[Chiefsinner]

Like many others, your understanding of this verse is flawed as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation. There are many problems with this interpretation. First, Jesus elsewhere said that He came “to seek and to save the lost” (Lk 19:10). Since the NT never says Jesus baptized anyone, it seems obvious that baptism is not necessary for salvation, else he himself would have performed baptism. Second, rather than baptizing, Jesus went around teaching everyone who He as and telling them that it was necessary to believe in Him. In His own words,“For God so loved the world He gave His One and Only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jn 3:16).

.

John 21:25 King James Version (KJV)

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

John 20:30-31 King James Version (KJV)

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I hope these address your highlighted post!

 

[Chiefsinner]

If baptism is a requirement for justification before God, it would conflict with the biblical teaching that salvation comes by faith alone (Gl 2:16 and Eph 2:8-9)

Those verses don’t have the words faith and alone in them unless you are following Luther’s version who added the words “alone”

The only time in scripture the words “faith” and “alone” are sided by side is in James 2:24 King James Version (KJV)

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

As for the passage in Galatians 2:16 works of the law is referring to mosaic law

More info on the link below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

These principles of Biblical law are sometimes called connections or commandments (mitzvot) and referred to collectively as the “Law of Moses” (Torat Mosheh, תורת משה), “Mosaic Law,” “Sinaitic Law,” or simply "the Law"

Matthew 7:17-20

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

They both go hand in hand…

 

[asd72]

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]). Justin Martyr

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]). Irenaeus

“The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]). Hippolytus

“But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

 

[Scitor]

Those verses don’t have the words faith and alone in them unless you are following Luther’s version who added the words “alone”

The only time in scripture the words “faith” and “alone” are sided by side is in James 2:24 King James Version (KJV)

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

As for the passage in Galatians 2:16 works of the law is referring to mosaic law

More info on the link below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

These principles of Biblical law are sometimes called connections or commandments (mitzvot) and referred to collectively as the “Law of Moses” (Torat Mosheh, תורת משה), “Mosaic Law,” “Sinaitic Law,” or simply "the Law"

Matthew 7:17-20

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

They both go hand in hand…

In James 2:24 James is dealing with people who profess to be Christians, and yet they don’t evidence the reality of their faith by their works [deeds]. There are many people that say they have faith yet don’t have works, and James is saying that real faith always produces works as a result… The question is, ‘A man may say that he has faith, but will that faith justify him?’ If it is just a ‘said’ faith”—no, it won’t!”

And yes, we will know the Christians by their fruit. Faith produces works. It is not the other way around.

Romans 3:20—“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in [God’s] sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:28—“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Titus 3:5—“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

In simple terms Christ came to free us from the law…Grace. To add works as a requirement for salvation is to abandon salvation by grace which leads us right back into the frustration of living under the law.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Scitor:

Since the NT never says Jesus baptized anyone, it seems obvious that baptism is not necessary for salvation,

[bibledrb]John 3:22[/bibledrb]

 

[asd72]

In James 2:24 James is dealing with people who profess to be Christians, and yet they don’t evidence the reality of their faith by their works [deeds]. There are many people that say they have faith yet don’t have works, and James is saying that real faith always produces works as a result… The question is, ‘A man may say that he has faith, but will that faith justify him?’ If it is just a ‘said’ faith”—no, it won’t!”

And yes, we will know the Christians by their fruit. Faith produces works. It is not the other way around.

Romans 3:20—“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in [God’s] sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:28—“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Titus 3:5—“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

In simple terms Christ came to free us from the law…Grace. To add works as a requirement for salvation is to abandon salvation by grace which leads us right back into the frustration of living under the law.

I have pasted below the Catholic understanding of Law and Grace. I hope that helps.

God’s Salvation: Law and Grace

THE MORAL LAW

1. What is the moral law?

1950-1953
1975-1978

The moral law is a work of divine Wisdom. It prescribes the ways and the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude and it forbids the ways that turn away from God.

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

For this reason God “wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.” (Saint Augustine)

1. What is the relationship between the natural law and the Old Law?

1961-1962
1980

The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. It expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason and which are thus affirmed and authenticated in the covenant of salvation. Its moral prescriptions, which are summed up in the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue, lay the foundations of the human vocation, prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor, and prescribe what is essential to it.

1. What place does the Old Law have in the plan of salvation?

1963-1964
1982

The Old Law permitted one to know many truths which are accessible to reason, showed what must or must not be done and, above all, like a wise tutor, prepared and disposed one for conversion and for the acceptance of the Gospel. However, while being holy, spiritual, and good, the Old Law was still imperfect because in itself it did not give the strength and the grace of the Spirit for its observance.

1. What is the New Law or the Law of the Gospel?

1965-1972
1983-1985

The New Law or the Law of the Gospel, proclaimed and fulfilled by Christ, is the fullness and completion of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is summed up in the commandment to love God and neighbor and to love one another as Christ loved us. It is also an interior reality: the grace of the Holy Spirit which makes possible such love. It is “the law of freedom” (Galatians 1:25) because it inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity.

“The New Law is mainly the same grace of the Holy Spirit which is given to believers in Christ.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas)

1. Where does one find the New Law?

1971-1974
1986

The New Law is found in the entire life and preaching of Christ and in the moral catechesis of the apostles. The Sermon on the Mount is its principal expression.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scitor-

I appreciate your continued participation in this thread, and I realize that you have more posts directed at you than you can possibly answer. However, I think a few key points do need some response from you.

Post 116 - I asked whether the Church received REAL authority from Jesus and whether the Church can determine the validity of infant baptism.

Post 120 - I quoted many Early Christians who discussed not whether to baptized infants but when to baptize them, and I asked what this tells us about the practice of the earliest believers.

Post 146 - I laid out a very simple case for infant baptism in bullet form, and I asked you to interact with those points.

Post 160 - I presented the scriptures for each of the seven sacraments as you requested, and I haven’t seen any response from you.

I’m happy to continue discussions with you as long as you are actually interacting with the material provided in response to your questions.

Is this something you are interested in?

 

[zz912]

Like many others,** your understanding of this verse is flawed **as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation. There are many problems with this interpretation. First, Jesus elsewhere said that He came “to seek and to save the lost” (Lk 19:10). Since the NT never says Jesus baptized anyone, it seems obvious that baptism is not necessary for salvation, else he himself would have performed baptism.

Be REAL careful accusing others of having a flawed understanding, when you show such obvious fundamental, factual errors.

*John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

John 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples), 3 he left Judea and returned to Galilee. *

While Jesus is not performing the baptisms personally, they are being performed by the Apostles under His DIRECT order and supervision.

 

[zz912]

The very Gospel itself comes under attack when eternal security of the believer is questioned. Placing the responsibility for maintaining salvation on the believer is adding works to grace and is unbiblical. It would no longer be a gift. It would become a trade…our faithfulness for His faithfulness. This is a far cry from the good news Jesus preached.

So please explain how infants who have sanctifying grace (as you declared earlier in this thread) lose that sactifying grace? This should be impossible.

 

[adrift]

Like many others, your understanding of this verse is flawed as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation.

My understanding is flawed

I have -]deleted/-] my response because it was better stated in post 180

Second, rather than baptizing, Jesus went around teaching everyone who He as and telling them that it was necessary to believe in Him. In His own words,“For God so loved the world He gave His One and Only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jn 3:16).

Jesus taught that it was necessary to be baptized as I pointed out in my post. Most of which you have ignored.

Furthermore, He made it clear that condemnation is based not on failure to baptize, but on failure to believe in Him (Jn 3:18).

That begs the question of what is belief? If you believe you will do as He says. Jesus said you must be reborn of water and the Spirit.

Finally, baptism is a religious work performed by human hands. If baptism is a requirement for justification before God, it would conflict with the biblical teaching that salvation comes by faith alone (Gl 2:16 and Eph 2:8-9)

You have added the word alone. The time I can remember that alone is mentioned is in James

24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone…

What you are indicating is that Jesus has conflicting teachings.

Matthew Chapter 28

19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

This verse in no way relates baptism to salvation.

OH? What do you think making disciples means? Do you believe Jesus made a meaningless command? It is easy to make a negative statement but it doesn’t negate that it is a command of Jesus and that Jesus said it must happen in order to be His disciples.

Symbolically baptism represents the dying of old self (immersion in water) and the rising as a new being in Christ (rising out of the water new and cleansed). I have provided the related scripture for this in a previous post.

Basically I don’t disagree. I don’t believe that immersion is necessary and that is proven in scripture.

Sorry…no further evidence there that baptism is required for salvation.

That is how you dismiss the scripture

Quote:
Acts Chapter 22
16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name

Quote:
Galatians Chapter 3
27: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ

Quote:
Titus Chapter 3
4: but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6: which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7: so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life

-]There is ample scripture that supports OSAS. Again, read Galatians and Ephesians. It is stated without dispute that salvation is a Gift from God…it has nothing to do with works. In Eph 2:8-9, Paul tells us “It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” We are saved by grace. It is God who calls us, not the other way around.

Gl 2:15-16 - Faith not works
Gl 2:21 - If not OSAS, it has to be works, thus Christ died for nothing
Eph 1:4-6 - It is Christ who calls us
Eph 1:13 - When we heard and believed we were SEALED - meaning cannot be undone. We

1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” /-]

This thread is on infant baptism not OSAS

Again, not evidence that baptism is required, but yes a symbolic gesture that one is a new creation who will go forth seeking to live his life for Christ.

Quote:
1 Peter Chapter 3
18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19: in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20: who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It is clear that it is not Just symbolic. It clearly states that Baptism now saves you.
You just ignore what it says

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

1 John 5:13 – That You May Know

The Greek word in 1 John 5:13 meaning “you may know” is eidete (a derivative of oida). This term does not necessarily imply an absolutely certain knowledge. The same is true in English and other languages. We use the verb “to know” in more than one way. For example, I could say I know I’m going to get an A on my Greek exam tomorrow. Does that mean I have an absolute certainty of this? No. In fact, I could get a B or worse. In this instance, the verb “I know” means I have confidence I’ll get an A on my exam because I have studied the material thoroughly and I know it well. In other words, I have a moral certitude, as opposed to an absolute certitude.

The context of 1 John shows that this broader sense is how eidete is used in chapter 5, verse 13. In the very next verses (14-15), St. John says, “And we have this confidence in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will He hears us, and if He hears us we know (Greek: oidamen; a derivative of oida) that what we have asked him for is ours.” Does this mean we can have absolute certainty we’ll receive whatever we asks for when we makes specific requests of God in prayer? Obviously, we can’t have absolute certainty. Also, we must remember that God is our sovereign Lord, and we trust Him to answer our prayers in the way that is best for us. But sometimes (perhaps often) what we just know is best for us is not, in fact, what’s really best for us. God often answers our prayers in a very different way from what we had asked for. So when St. John says, “If we ask anything according to His will He hears us, and if He hears us we know that what we have asked Him for is ours,” He is making clear that our knowing is purely conditional on unforeseen factors, not some sort of absolute assurance that, “what we have asked Him for is ours.”

1 John 3:21-22
Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in God and receive from Him whatever we ask, because we keep His commandments and do what pleases Him.

Here St. John speaks of our having “confidence” that we will receive what we pray for. Here again, this is not a confidence equivalent to an absolute assurance.

The very Gospel itself comes under attack when eternal security of the believer is questioned.

No, all that is questioned is flawed interpretations of the gospel.

 

[zz912]

In simple terms Christ came to free us from the law…Grace. To add works as a requirement for salvation is to abandon salvation by grace which leads us right back into the frustration of living under the law.

*John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. 21 **Whoever has my commandments and **observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” 22 Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, “Master, [then] what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. *

This idea that you can separate faith and works is just bizarre. The two are the opposite sides to the same coin. Your works flow from your faith, and your works show and confirm your faith. You can’t have faith without works.

Jesus even taught about this some when He taught about the two sons, one who said “no” to his father’s request, but still did it anyway, and the other son who said “yes”, but did not do the request. Jesus asked which son followed the father’s will.